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, 11:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Actually the Bible, in the New Testament, says we are all born believers.l.

Actually it doesn't. And as uaual, you FAIL to provide any supporting evidence.

"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him"
"For many are called, but few are chosen"
"To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,"

As usual, we know more about the Bible than those who call themselves believers.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-09-2016, 11:58 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 09:51 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Born believers in what? Dualistic thinking? Supernatural in/out understanding of concepts? Purpose in the world... those don't say anything about it against atheism and plenty of atheists think those ways as developed adults.

Where does a "diety/god" of specific understanding come out from that? That's all atheism/theism is about.

It's really bizarre that some theists portray the total notion of metaphysical ideas as the contrast of atheism. Atheism isn't hard line scientific naturalism to a constraint thought on how minds work. These are separate points of philosophical ideas people may have. They may share a large crossover but aren't the same points.

You're point is well taken. Theists - me included - often conflate atheism with naturalism/materialism because they tend to go hand in hand. But there is value in making the distinction. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Randy Ruggles's post
10-09-2016, 12:11 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 10:08 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I don't claim to have a 'God detector.' But the latest scientific research seems to indicate that we all have God detectors. So the question becomes, "Why are some people born without it?" That is the question I am trying to address.

What "scientific research" ? You don't have a "god detector". You have a NEED for cognitive closure and explanations for what you see. If you don't see another answer, you cook up a god to fill the gap. It's a gap detector, gap avoider, gap filler .... "gawd done it". Humans are pattern seeking monkeys. You WANT to find a pattern, whether there is one or not.

Quote:Interestingly, there are people who have a condition - its name escapes me at the moment - where they have trouble recognizing faces. These same people tend to be atheists. This supports my hypothesis that something is defective with their "pattern-recognition software."

Prove it. Where is the research that demonstrates this ?
It's a fallacy. The fact that these (few) people (if they are) atheists, IN NO WAY proves that there is a determinant of atheism in others who don't have it, or that there are not MULTIPLE determinants.

The condition is known as prosopagnosia or face blindness. It is a form of autism and most autistics are atheists. As I recall, there is a stronger link than that but I cannot find the source at the moment. If and when I do I'll post it.

I also acknowledge that my hypothesis does not and cannot explain all forms of atheism. Many - maybe even most - atheists come to their views later in life through reason and a thorough study of the evidence - or lack thereof. I'm referring to what I can atheopaths - those people who are born without a belief in God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 12:14 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 12:11 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 10:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What "scientific research" ? You don't have a "god detector". You have a NEED for cognitive closure and explanations for what you see. If you don't see another answer, you cook up a god to fill the gap. It's a gap detector, gap avoider, gap filler .... "gawd done it". Humans are pattern seeking monkeys. You WANT to find a pattern, whether there is one or not.


Prove it. Where is the research that demonstrates this ?
It's a fallacy. The fact that these (few) people (if they are) atheists, IN NO WAY proves that there is a determinant of atheism in others who don't have it, or that there are not MULTIPLE determinants.

The condition is known as prosopagnosia or face blindness. It is a form of autism and most autistics are atheists. As I recall, there is a stronger link than that but I cannot find the source at the moment. If and when I do I'll post it.

I also acknowledge that my hypothesis does not and cannot explain all forms of atheism. Many - maybe even most - atheists come to their views later in life through reason and a thorough study of the evidence - or lack thereof. I'm referring to what I can atheopaths - those people who are born without a belief in God.

No references and no support. Prove it. You can't. More generalizations. No science.

Actually for those who want to read something on the subject by a REAL expert, and not the ramblings of this pathetic amateur, the definitive work on the subject was written by Dr. Robert N. Bellah, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674061439
"Religion in Human Evolution, From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age", Robert N. Bellah

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
10-09-2016, 12:16 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 09:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Ha, ha. Good one. Smile

So it seems like you are saying all our beliefs are learned. But that goes against much of the latest research in neuroscience which has largely discredited the "blank slate" theory. It appears we are born and come pre-programmed with certain beliefs. Theists will say God put them there. Atheists will say evolution did it. But I'm not sure we can deny their reality any longer.

http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2012/02/22/are-...knowledge/

I did not say that and nor am I an upholder of the blank slate notion.

But if I had to hazard a guess at a dividing line between nature and nurture, I'd put most but not all 'desires' in the nature camp whereas 'beliefs', yes, would be in the nurture camp.

Think of it a bit like this:
Hardware, Operating System, Software Programs, Application Programs and then data (that is input).

I suspect that you are thinking (or feeling) that the god-stuff is part of the operating system. Whereas, I think that desires are in the OS, beliefs are in the software, deism is the app and a particular brand of theism (e.g. catholicism etc.) is the data entry.

So you are saying "corrupt" software and I am saying that I didn't upload the app.

Thumbsup

What a great analogy! Very helpful, thank you. I might use that in my book. And no you don't get a royalty. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Randy Ruggles's post
10-09-2016, 12:18 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 01:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  [...] I'm not sure how you can account for such near universal beliefs, without a predisposition to it.

"Universal beliefs"....? You should know that 22.3% of the Australian population are atheists, and only 61.1% are Christian. You're only fooling yourself if you describe a belief in gods as near universal. Like other theists, you simply make stuff up on the trot—in order to dispel any doubts you might have about your own beliefs.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
10-09-2016, 12:24 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
OP seems to be a bullshit salesman. Tack on a few "hypothesis" "science" and "falsifiable" buzzwords, play silly buggers with language and ignore any inconvenient replies.

I can't believe you can write a book like this OP but I've seen too many idiots succeed in such endeavours. You'll probably make a ton of cash if you can find the appropriate buzzwords. What you will not do is advance the search for truth.

*If* your hypothesis is so fancy and testable etc, *why* before writing a book are you not submitting papers for peer review?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
10-09-2016, 12:25 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:22 PM)cactus Wrote:  Randy, what's your view on the doctrine of hell? Who, if anyone, do you think goes there, and why? Do you have any difficulty reconciling this doctrine with your "born without the detector" analogy?

Great question - although a little off topic. Theology not science. But I will respond anyway. I was raised to believe in the traditional view of hell by my mother - although my father was an atheist - and believed it until I was about the age of 40.

Then, after a year-long study of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, I came to the conclusion that it does not teach that we have an immortal soul which survives death and that so-called hell is only a temporary form of punishment. I am what is known as an annihilationist but I prefer to use the term "conditional immortality." I think those who aren't "saved" will ultimately cease to exist forever - which is pretty much the atheist view anyway.

Whether hell is a real place or not, the Bible is clear that no one ever goes there for not believing in God. They go there because of their sin. I will have to consider how to reconcile my theological view of hell with my atheopathy hypothesis. At this point, I'll simply have to say I don't know. But thanks for the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 12:36 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 11:15 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 11:10 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  ...... It is about given a natural account of why some people are born without something that the data is telling us most of us have innately.

Wait.. so now, the deity detector is not some 'Thing' that exists 'Out there, some where'....

.... It's some sort of bundle of neurons within the brain that does... what, exactly?

*Raises hand*

(08-09-2016 11:13 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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.

Perchance they are asking for this evidence? Some of your wording seems... strange....

So, how about some more and better definitions? Smile

Thumbsup

Tell me which definitions you would like and I'll try to comply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 12:42 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Let us save you the trouble.
The main contributor to atheism is education.
Archaeology and History have debunked the holy books of theists.
The pathology here is theism.
People who claim they believe in the unseen which they can't even define.

It's pretty funny that with the rise of science, theists feel the need to climb on the science bandwagon, and try to establish somehow that *their* (of course it's their's) religion is somehow based in science. So far, in this thread, we've not seen ONE SHRED of any real science, or even the ability to use the scientific method, (or even the knowledge of what that is). Just a bunch of unsupported assertions and conjectures that are not testable, in any way.

Except that it is a well-established fact that science arose and prospered in the West because nearly all the major branches of science were founded by Christian theists. No one is jumping on the science bandwagon. It appears that you have bought into the false notion that there is some conflict between science and Christianity. Sadly, your comments are full of incorrect assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: