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, 05:14 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Dance Monkey, Dance!




---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
10-09-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 02:14 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  OK, but taking you seriously at what point in evolution did this aberration get embedded in humans? I have often wondered about that as far as dogs go. How did it evolve to be basically in servitude to humanity? Yes I realize that it was a forced evolution and those which refused were probably killed, but still.
Btw I do like your ideas.

It started as co-evolution; wolves likely self-selected for closer flight distance to take advantage of a new food source - human middens.

There was almost certainly a lot of co-evolution before there was intentional breeding.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-09-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I'm re-posting my earlier comments, as you may have missed them...

(10-09-2016 12:54 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  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?

The "evidence" does not suggest we are "born believers".

99.99% of the current scientific literature supports the tenet that we're born (effectively) as atheists. The former is just a case of selective bias on your part. You're a theist, so naturally you support theistic tenets. Doesn't make them right. At any rate, we're not literally born as either theists OR atheists, but you seem to have a problem understanding that at the get-go.

And you can't pick and choose by what means you interpret theism. By its definition, you must accept that your god exists. Theism itself is defined as a belief in the existence of deities. The term theism also describes the classical conception of gods that are found in all monotheistic and polytheistic religions, (and is derived from the Greek word theos meaning "god").

You also claimed earlier that that religious tenets represent universal beliefs.

"Universal beliefs"....? You should know that 22.3% of the Australian population are atheists, and only 61.1% are Christian. And you're only fooling yourself if you describe a belief in gods as near universal. Like other theists, you simply make up facts and figures on the trot—in order to (possibly?) 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
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
10-09-2016, 05:20 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 04:09 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(10-09-2016 02:16 PM)tomilay Wrote:  How about this guy? I could be convinced about this guy. I am told they are so close to us they can tell us apart as individuals by face. You walk into his room, leave. Someone else walks in. And he knows this is a different guy. Not from the smell or dress. But the face.

[Image: 03-bonobo-aka-pygmy-chimpanzee-670.jpg]

Their similarity to us, intellectually/cognitively, goes much deeper than that. I strongly advocate for recognition of gorillas and chimpanzees/bonobos (especially the latter) as being considered equal to humans in terms of basic rights and dignity. There is no question in my mind that they are self-aware, thoughtful, and emotional creatures no less than we are (just not as intelligent... and in some cases, I'm not so sure about that part), and I am proud to call them kin. When I hear someone object that they're not related to apes, usually phrased as "a monkey's uncle" or something equally stupid, I am flabbergasted at the ignorance.

I try to point them to these:





Not only does she immediately understand, and start signing her grief to the handler, when she is told that her kitten, which she named "All Ball", has been killed by a car. She waits until she is alone to mourn privately. I cry a little, still, every time I hear the heartbroken sobs of the gorilla who lost her kitten. I'm crying a little bit right now, as I type this, from having listened to her when I looked up the video a couple of minutes ago.


Here she is in happier moments, with the great Robin Williams, whom she recognizes from a video of his that she likes to watch:





Koko hadn't smiled or laughed in six months, prior to his arrival, because she was grieving the death of Michael, a 27 year old gorilla who was her friend... and Robin was able to get this grin on her face:

[Image: a53032ae132799fa2fec71e45a2704cc.jpg]

Truly, Robin Williams is a loss to all of us. Even Koko. You can learn all about Koko and Michael in this long documentary, if any of you are more interested:





Forget phylogeny, genetics, whatever. Watch any or all of that, and tell me that we're not related to them. And gorillas are more distant from us than chimps or bonobos. Want to really blow your mind for communications skills? Google "bonobo Kanzi", or watch the video of them going camping with the scientists who study them.

Chimps grieving for a dead friend.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-09-2016, 05:32 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 03:34 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I'm going to read threw the rest I sure someone already covered this already or at least better then I ever could. But my initial thoughts are.

(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.

Belief is accepting that a statement is true or that something exists. But doesn't necessary mean that that statement is true. As a baby information is coming at you a million miles an hour. You have no understanding of the way things are and are constantly learning.

I think about those baby videos you can find online. When the parent gives the baby a lemon for the first time. They don't know what it will be sour, they don't even know what sour is. But they basic understanding is that when these big people give me something I should put it in my mouth. Babys put just about everything in their mouths because their learning the world around them. They don't have a concept if something is dangerous, poisonous, or even gross. At least until they learn it eather threw teaching or experince.

So when Mom or Dad give baby a lemon, and makes the yummy sound. Baby believes it to be yummy. Until they put it in their mouths then the get a big surprise.

[Image: baby-eat-lemon.gif]

Now this also dosn't mean that they wont eventually like it. or not learn from the first go about. But i'm sure you man even accept that just because someone believes something doesn't mean it's right or true.

Now how you can make a claim that babies automatically believe in a being that creates all of existence and wants to diktat their lives, I have no idea. Let alone the one that is inscribed in the bible. That has to to be learned.

How else would it happen that just about every child believes in the same god their parents do? Maybe not in the same exsat way as just about every believer (including my former self) that I've meet has different defintion and perspective on what God or gods are.

One of my earlist memories was the first time I went into a church for the first time. I remember it because it was traumatic. I was maybe 4 or 5, and my Sunday school class and myself were being lead into the main chapel I was the last one threw the door and they closed on my figures because I was in awh of the size and not paying attention. I screamed bloody murder and the teacher told me to be quiet because I was in Gods house. I looked around for the guy to see if he had a band-aid to make my hand feel better. But didn't see anyone. I didn't know what they were talking about when I was going to those classes. I was just having fun with other kids my age. But days turned to months months into years. Church on Sunday, CCD on Tuesdays, prayer at the dinner table, prayer before going to bed. Eventually it because routine and with out any insight from a different perspective you're stuck with the information you're given.

So let's pretend that your hypothesis is correct. that babies and some tapped information about "god/s" How could we ever know they are being untaught the truth? That religions are poisoning the well of this all natural information.

(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.

I've taken the point to underline something you glanced over.

I would like to see this study that you found this infromation from if you could please supply a link.

But from the foot note you presented they didn't say that the theists saw all the patterns ether. Just that they added one's that weren't there.

What can we gather from that?

Laugh out load I had bought a bottle of Anchor Steam Porter Ale when I was visiting one of my younger brothers, must be over 35 years ago. As I sipped on it, the warmer it got, of course the more bitter it got. One of my nephews asked for a sip of my Pepsi. I didn't want to give the kid some alcohol to drink, but my brother said a sip wouldn't hurt the kid. So I did. He was expecting 12 teaspoons of sugar flavor and got a good bitter ale. He shuddered and made a face not unlike this kid's. His words were, "Icky Pepsi". Beer and/or ale has been called that by our family ever since!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
10-09-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
In my estimation, the acceptance of what bigger people say is a survival instinct, not a belief trait. Children depend on the big people to feed, inform and protect them until they are able to function independently. I hope that deliberately misleading them with religion will, someday, be seen for the abuse that it is. I regret doing this with my children, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it. It's how I was brought up, and I didn't push it, only went to church, etc. And all three of them are admitted atheists. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionar..._religions

Religion arose in human society (societies) long after Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa. If there were a genetic mutation / trait that promoted belief as an adjunct to survival, that mutation would have had to happen in many multiple locations, simultaneously, and independently, as humans were already living in geographically isolated locations. The probability that all those independent societies all independently experienced the SAME mutation, and had it selected for, is so low, it defies any probability. It's ZERO. The human genome has been sequenced. There is no known gene for belief in the gods.

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
10-09-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 09:30 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Except no. That's neither a fact, nor is it something supported in the bible. In fact, the exact opposite is what's supported in the bible.

You and I are from different religions, but your religion is founded on my religion, Judaism. Whether you believe that the world was created in six literal days or billions of years, Judaism teaches that the Torah was given to the Jews well into the development of human history. This leaves a period of time before the Jews were instructed on how to worship G-d. During this period of time, humanity lives by a set of rules we now call call the seven Noahide laws. A requirement to worship G-d is not listed among these laws; only that if a person does choose to worship, it can't be to an idol.

Clearly, atheism was a valid position to take at least at one point in time, so I don't think you can convincingly make the argument that all people are theists by default... especially when your beliefs are built upon a Jewish foundation.

Actually the Bible, in the New Testament, says we are all born believers. But I realize you are Jewish and are referring to the Torah - or what Christians call the Old Testament. (Hope that does not offend you. Most Christians I know have a strong affection for Jewish people - me included.)

To me, that’s a huge problem.

Okay, so I’m not especially familiar with the NT, but if I were a Christian, I’d be highly suspicious of things that are contradictory to my source document.

BTW, the term “old testament” is indeed offensive to a Jewish audience. The term was given to the Hebrew Bible to make it seem… well… “old” and outdated. You may, of course, continue to call it whatever you wish. I will know what you’re referring to, but it’s akin to me referring to the NT as the “fraudulent testament”.

(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You mention a "requirement to worship G-d." But is that not different from an awareness of God's existence? Satan (I understand some Jews don't believe in Satan) knows God exists but does not worship him. And I know of many atheists (Matt Dillahunty for example) who say that even if God existed they would never worship him. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure if biblically - whether Old Testament or New - we can say atheism was ever a valid position to take. That won't mean much to atheists who don't accept the authority of the Bible but that is the Christian position and, as far as I can see, should be the Jewish one as well.

We can certainly say that according to the Torah, the foundation upon which Christianity claims to have been built, worshiping G-d is not a requirement given to non-Jews. These are the seven laws of Noah, which we arrive at through reading the Torah.

1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not worship false gods.
4. Do not be sexually immoral.
5. Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
6. Do not curse God.
7. Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

The atheists may not accept the authority of my book, but I’m not the one attempting to compel them to believe in G-d. This is not required of them to believe in the first place and for that reason, it’s kind of problematic that you’re basing your argument on the Hebrew Bible (which you are).

Further, they really shouldn’t accept the authority of the Hebrew Bible because it’s not their book (if the atheists in question are Jews, then it is their book, and you can leave that up to the Jewish community to address.) The Torah wasn’t given to the gentile’s ancestors… it’s not their legacy. Why should they accept the word of something that they have no tradition of accepting? It’s really not their business and no, the Jewish people are not willing to share the Torah with the general public. It was taken from us and misused (as is evidenced by the existence of Christianity).

And for the record, no Jews studying and adhering to any form of Judaism accept the Christian explanation for Satan. In Judaism, Satan is an angel who is completely under the authority of G-d. To suggest otherwise is the same as saying that G-d is somehow limited and capable of losing control and authority; a concept which is totally against Jewish thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
10-09-2016, 08:55 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(10-09-2016 04:09 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(10-09-2016 02:16 PM)tomilay Wrote:  How about this guy? I could be convinced about this guy. I am told they are so close to us they can tell us apart as individuals by face. You walk into his room, leave. Someone else walks in. And he knows this is a different guy. Not from the smell or dress. But the face.

[Image: 03-bonobo-aka-pygmy-chimpanzee-670.jpg]

Their similarity to us, intellectually/cognitively, goes much deeper than that. I strongly advocate for recognition of gorillas and chimpanzees/bonobos (especially the latter) as being considered equal to humans in terms of basic rights and dignity. There is no question in my mind that they are self-aware, thoughtful, and emotional creatures no less than we are (just not as intelligent... and in some cases, I'm not so sure about that part), and I am proud to call them kin. When I hear someone object that they're not related to apes, usually phrased as "a monkey's uncle" or something equally stupid, I am flabbergasted at the ignorance.

I try to point them to these:





Not only does she immediately understand, and start signing her grief to the handler, when she is told that her kitten, which she named "All Ball", has been killed by a car. She waits until she is alone to mourn privately. I cry a little, still, every time I hear the heartbroken sobs of the gorilla who lost her kitten. I'm crying a little bit right now, as I type this, from having listened to her when I looked up the video a couple of minutes ago.


Here she is in happier moments, with the great Robin Williams, whom she recognizes from a video of his that she likes to watch:





Koko hadn't smiled or laughed in six months, prior to his arrival, because she was grieving the death of Michael, a 27 year old gorilla who was her friend... and Robin was able to get this grin on her face:

[Image: a53032ae132799fa2fec71e45a2704cc.jpg]

Truly, Robin Williams is a loss to all of us. Even Koko. You can learn all about Koko and Michael in this long documentary, if any of you are more interested:





Forget phylogeny, genetics, whatever. Watch any or all of that, and tell me that we're not related to them. And gorillas are more distant from us than chimps or bonobos. Want to really blow your mind for communications skills? Google "bonobo Kanzi", or watch the video of them going camping with the scientists who study them.

Koko is so awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
10-09-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(07-09-2016 11:02 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 10:47 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Welcome.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/are-k...ef-in-god/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...8/abstract

Thank you, Full Circle. I will read those links with great interest.

Well? Did you read them?

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: