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
10-09-2016, 12:47 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 11:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(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.

Huh, science is all about showing hypothesizes wrong and trying again and again.

Well, yes, that is true. But why would you be so overjoyed for this particular hypothesis to be falsified? Sounds like some bias creeping in. I personally don't care whether my hypothesis is falsified. I care about truth. I want to know what is true. I am able to keep my emotions out of my quest for truth. I believe anything because it is comforting. In fact, I would much rather be an atheist. But I am persuaded by the evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 12:53 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 12:16 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 10:17 PM)DLJ Wrote:  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

Except I've already used that analogy in my material so ... © Tongue

I'll let you know where you can send the cheque/check.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
10-09-2016, 12:54 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 11:31 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 11:20 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I haven't had time to read and respond to all the replies but it is late and I must go to bed. Thank you everyone for your responses and I look forward to catching up tomorrow.

Hug

G'night!

Thumbsup

(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. I expected more people to attack my hypothesis that atheopathy is caused by a genetic mutation. It's a radical idea for which there might be little evidence. Time will tell. But science has always progressed by someone challenging the reigning paradigm (eg. Einstein and Newtonian physics.) Thanks for being a part of this. Night all. Smile

I'll let others with far more knowledge in the fields about which you're talking answer the "Well established" bit... but I'm still lost as to the actual nature of what you're proposing.

I look forwards to your further expansions on/too people's questions.

Thumbsup

Thanks. I'll try to put it succinctly. The common view is that people are born without a belief in God. But new research indicates that, nowadays, babies actually have a predisposition toward belief. Yet, some are still born without it. How do we account for this? My hypothesis attempts to give an evolutionary explanation for this "lack of belief" - namely a genetic mutation which corrupts the "pattern-detector" the rest of us are born with. Does that make it clearer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 01:05 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Randy, are you this Randy Ruggles?

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Fiction...B004TYI99C

And/or this Randy Ruggles?

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-atheist-in-...ikes-back/

And/or

http://marmotism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/...ction.html

There are a few of your name who are evidently other people, a Canadian engineer on Linkedin, a man seeking crowd funding for treatment ... but, most are linked to creationist matters.

Are you a creationist, Randy, or is it all coincidence?

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
[+] 4 users Like Gloucester's post
10-09-2016, 01:21 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2016 01:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 12:42 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(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.

Which you fail to examine and point out.
Correlation is not causation, AND it is well established that religion opposed science, at least for a while. The fact that the educated HAPPENED to be theists is irrelevant. It was not their theism that made them great scientists. I see you really are a beginner here. Are you like 15 ? Science prospered in the West, in spite of religion, not because of it. You never heard of Galileo or Copernicus ? What's sad here, is that you think you are a scientist. You have a VERY strange set of "well known facts". Weeping Clearly you know NOTHING at all about the history of science, if you think it's major branches were "founded by Christian theists". Your desperation to appear to be logical and reasonable is becoming more obvious by the post.

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
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-09-2016, 02:56 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If there are people who ascribe actual purpose and agency to evolution, they'd be creationist as well, like theistic evolutionist.

I ascribe purpose and agency to evolution as well, making me a creationist in this regard, by these beliefs alone.
I wasn't talking about theists, I was talking about those who believe that natural forces are responsible for the evolutionary processes that purposefully design life forms to become better at surviving in their environment over time.

(09-09-2016 08:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think it's clear that he's not being exclusive to monotheism, but the same inclination and tendencies that govern non-monothestic creationist views as well.
I don't think so. Remember that quote where he was talking about a God in particular?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 04:44 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  2. Theism is the default position. We are all born believers. Evolution has caused us to be this way due to its survival advantage.

This is the first problem here. I think a better way to phrase this might be "credulity is the default condition." Even so, I'm not sure that's the case. There are areas of the brain that are active while a human undergoes a spiritual or religious experience, from my understanding. But that doesn't translate into belief in god(s) very easily.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  3. Atheopaths lack a belief in God. They are "born that way." Their "agency detector" is broken. Studies have, in fact, demonstrated that theists see patterns that don't exist and atheists miss patterns that do exist. Their "pattern recognition software," so to speak, has been corrupted.

Can you support these claims with reputable sources?

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  4. One mechanism that we know of which tends to break things and corrupt information is genetic mutation.

Genetic strands aren't information. They are protein strands, physical things which concoct physical responses to physical imperatives. Information, on the other hand, is an abstraction -- that which is held in the mind.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  5. So, my testable, falsifiable prediction is that one or more genetic mutations are responsible for atheopathy.

This doesn't give much shrift to the fact that the human brain, and its emergent mind, is the result of the complex interactions between nature and nurture.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Incidentally, a connection has been made between atheism and autism in the peer-reviewed literature. Perhaps if we find the cause of autism, we will be closer to finding the cause of atheopathy. (Hint: I don't believe it is vaccines. Wink )

It's also been noted that theists are disproportionately represented in prisons. It would be quite the leap, however, to argue that the one causes the other, don't you agree?

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Any feedback from members is sincerely appreciated. This is a serious hypothesis that I believe deserves careful consideration and study with the intent to understand why some people are born without a belief in God.

I'd be very surprised if you can find a link between a particular allele and a particular belief, myself.

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Also, please do not take offense to anything I have said. You might choose to look at this hypothesis as humans evolving away from religion and, for atheopaths, any remnant of faith being vestigial.

I think comparing atheists to sociopaths is somewhat telling, but it doesn't offend me -- I'm pretty used to that line of argument.


(07-09-2016 10:58 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I accept that but would it not still mean that the belief, in God, itself is not innate but learned?

I think the strongest evidence for this is the localization of religious faith. People born in Christian countries tend to be Christian themselves. People born in Muslim cultures tend to be Muslim. You won't find very many Southern Baptists in Iran, or voodoo followers in Argentina.

Also, why are you capitalizing "god" if one of your givens is that the investigation of god(s) is outside the purview of science? Do you have a specific god in mind?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
10-09-2016, 05:09 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
All those replies, and not one to what I wrote. The pattern repeats. *sigh*

It would be nice, just once, for one of these theists who comes in here under the guise of scientific methodology and intellectual rigor to actually address the glaring flaws in how they have come to view the data.

Let's start with the massive misunderstanding about how DNA, natural selection, and genetics in general work. This isn't a minor, "oops, my bad, let me amend my statement" error, but a primary fault in the entire argument...

And it does indeed stem from the Creationist notion that human DNA was once perfect, and has become "tainted by sin", corrupted over time. They see mutations as a degradation of pure DNA, rather than a simple code-substitution, as geneticists do.

Despite Randy's pretense to scientific methodology and intellectual honesty, he is clearly from Creationist roots. That makes this conversation a bit like dealing with the "Intelligent Design" crowd, where they really think that the world was made by magic but spend a lot of their effort trying to put on the costume of intellectual rigor and (pseudoscientific) verbiage for the purpose of disguising their absolute lack of valid premises, let alone logical conclusions.

Next, we will have to deal with the barrage of quote-mined scientists, taken out of context or just plain misquoted, trying to win with appeals to authority and spend half our time explaining that no, Mr. Creationist, you don't get to make up or redefine terms to suit your agenda.

Having foreseen this, I tried to make a simple analogy on why the premise of his argument is flawed (blue vs brown eyes... I guess if we used my analogue of his argument to do what he has done to atheists, we'd call the brown-eyed people "melanopathic" to make it sound more sinister and unnatural), to which he could respond-- and if an honest person, correct his entire approach. Yes, it would require starting over and reformulating his ideas with better information.

But we can't have that. It's much easier to confirm one's own prejudices and then lie for Jesus. So I'll say it yet again, this week:

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

"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
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
10-09-2016, 05:20 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:It would be nice, just once, for one of these theists who comes in here under the guise of scientific methodology and intellectual rigor to actually address the glaring flaws in how they have come to view the data.

Aw, c'mon, RS, do you think they are stupid?

Um, hang on, Facepalm I'll have to rethink that question

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
10-09-2016, 05:21 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:32 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 05:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  For someone who wants to write a whole book about atheism (or anyother given topic) it should be mandatory to know what atheism even is. It is certainly not defined by the belief in evolution. Atheism has no requirement to believe in evolution. So dont count on my $, i wont buy it unless you educate yourself about the topic you are going to discuss. But this ignorance is not my main beef.

This is my main beef:
This quote of yours below combined with the statement above implies that you must be an atheist by your own definition. But in your introduction you claimed to be a theist. How so?

I am still waiting for an explanation to this contratiction. Drinking Beverage

Drinking Beverage

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: