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
08-09-2016, 04:39 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
The word "atheist" should not exist, but it does because others in human history make bad gap filling claims about invisible sky wizards. As may others in the skeptic community have said in the past. "There is no word "a-unicornist" or "a-spidermanist".

"atheist" is simple a result of THINKING without blindly swallowing.

Human progress from going from nomadic migrating grunters to evolving into settling into cities and farming is a result of our species ability to figure things out. "Atheist" really is no different from going from belief in Santa to the realization your parents are full of shit and they are the ones lying to you.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 05:30 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
At work.

HELLO! Big Grin

Hug

Hi Randy (Yes, being a 'foreigner' I am giggling inanely at a colloquial connotation of said name) you claim to have a 'God detector'.

Can I see yours/it?

Can it touch it, please?

Big Grin

Very much cheers to all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
08-09-2016, 05:39 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
This is " completely naturalistic and scientifically testable and falsifiable hypothesis. "????


I don't think so.


What you're suggesting is that the predisposition to religious belief is genetically encoded.

Considering genetically encoded traits are the result of evolution - and evolution favors traits with a survivability value --- it's ridiculous to suggest that religion is an added value survival trait - in that far more people have been killed or died over religion than atheism.

..........


In fact - the reverse would be (and possibly is) true ---

Atheism is a better trait to be genetically inherited.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
08-09-2016, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 06:42 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(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.

While I too take issue with #2 let’s also look at #3.

I cited a paper earlier, here is the Abstract:

"In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children's upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

It seems to me that instead of an “agency detector” being broken in children who don’t believe when NOT exposed to religious teachings, what this paper shows is that (please pardon the slang) the “bullshit detector” has been currupted by the religious teachings.

Speaking from experience my “pattern recognition software” was originally corrupted by bad data "coded” by my elders.

Barrett is grasping at straws and force fitting his seminary views into his observations, they are tainted imo.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Full Circle's post
08-09-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I also want to refer again to "agency detection" as a positive trait.

It may was during the evolution of homo sapiens from his ancestor, living out there in nature.
But how about modern times? Maybe it is of a disadvantage to be irrational for man living in modern civilized cultures with the challenges (selection pressure?) of nuclear holocaust, global warning, overpopulation, etc.
Since science seems to be what makes us cause but also master (so far) these challenges, detecting agency where there is none, may be disadvantageous.

So, a "broken" agency detector may just be the next step in evolution.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
08-09-2016, 07:28 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Honestly, I think you have unjustly equalled belief that something has been designed, with belief that something has been designed by god. I could readily accept that small children would assume that things are designed, but that the designer is 'god' would require at the very least a knowledge of the existence of religion. IMO most small children assume their caregivers 'make' everything. Not based on any scientific study, just experience as a secular parent.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Hey OP how the hell are you gonna make a whole book outta this? I take it you'll be self-published.

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
08-09-2016, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 07:54 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 12:17 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I have a problem with #2 as well.

In your indtroductory explanation you mentioned rabbits hearing rustles in the bushes being of an evolutionary advantage (the "false positives"). I agree that this would be an favourable trait.
However, while believing that an intelligent agent creating the universe being a similar trait to detect a "false positive" agency is of the same category, it is on a completely different level. How is one justified to jump from assuming primitive thinking like "i think something is near, based on some sensory input" to a much higher evolved (in terms of intellect) thinking (admittedly of a similar category) of "when i sit down and consider the origin of everything around me, i come to the conclusion that an intelligent agent created it"?
Pattern recognition on a "tactical" level in day to day survival is one thing, but why relate it to "strategic" (philosophical level) thinking about the origin of everything around me. Is this really justified?

What i am talking about is that comparing the two is possibly a fallacy of false analogy unless you have scientific data to support the link of the two?

Possibly because out default theism is built on some other sets of consideration, more to do with out innate desire for meaning, hope, purpose, a sense of life which posses some sense of meaningful order.

In this regard one does see life as a cosmic accident, but intentional, "designed" so to say.

If these sort of beliefs are our default tendencies, than it goes without saying that we're intuitive theists in this regard.

"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
08-09-2016, 07:59 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
At work.

'If they are the default'....... ?

Other posters have pointed out the problems and counter studies to this already.

Please also don't throw other things/ideas into the thread and muddy things up.

Am still hoping the OP will show off their deity detector. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
08-09-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I didn't emerge from the womb believing in Santa. I was told about Santa when I was a small child. There were stories and pictures and songs and presents that caused me to believe that there really was a Santa Claus. The whole thing was a carefully crafted fiction that was perpetuated by nearly every adult and child I encountered. Everyone was in it together to keep the story alive. Even when learning the truth, part of that truth was to keep the story going for those who still believed (younger siblings for example).

In much the same way I learned the god story. It has been passed down for generations with slightly different narratives. But being born into a family that followed a certain belief system meant that I was surrounded but others that did the same. The story was perpetuated by going to church, by attending Catechism classes, by going through the rituals found within the church.

A baby's mind is pretty much a blank slate, that is the default position. It is the people around them who instill the information required to develop a belief.

A baby born into a Catholic environment will learn about and perhaps begin believing in the Catholic depiction of god. The same is true with all the other faiths and with no faith. As a child's reasoning skills and autonomy increase they may or may not continue on the same path.

The instinct to survive at birth is about the physical. It isn't until the 'need' to fit in, to follow the herd becomes apparent that believing in, or pretending to believe in, the same as the others comes into play. Belief in a god is not necessary for physical survival.

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

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: