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
11-09-2016, 06:03 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2016 06:35 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
There is no "Satan". We know where the concept arose and evolved from.
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_...z_WXXYRs4C
(Dr. Elaine Pagels - Princeton)

The concept of "angels" evolved, even in the Bible and Hebrew culture. A childish and mythological concept. Academic Christian scholars (non-fundies) dismiss the idea as ancient and preposterous).

"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."

Straight out of the Egyptian Book of The Dead.

This Ruggles character seems to be unaware of even the basics.
The Bible (a collection of ancient literature, non-unanimously VOTED into a ''canon", on which there is no agreement) says nothing about humans being "born believers". That statement belies a profound ignorance of human history, Hebrew history, and Biblical Studies.

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
11-09-2016, 06:13 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I would say "This again?" but I imagine somebody's already said that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 04:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 11:55 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Because there is only one truth surrounded by a variety of lies.


Sounds like a very Christian belief. Of one truth surround by distortions and lies.


You're projecting.

(11-09-2016 04:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why not hold that there is no such thing as truth, rather than hold to a belief in a hidden and rare truth, elusive to mankind.

Why deny reality? What is this hidden, elusive truth?

The truth is that we are evolving primates with a finite lifespan.
We are aware of our existence and the temporary nature of it.

Some primates want to deceive themselves and others into believing otherwise.

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
11-09-2016, 10:56 AM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2016 10:05 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 04:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 12:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.


When their beliefs align with one form of theism or the other, they're theists whether they like the label or not. If you believe in what would be defined by variety of theists as a God/s, you're a theist, even if you remain in the closet.

Theists have had thousands of years to spread they're wings and paint a variety of forms of theism, that swallows any sort of dualistic perspective, or perspective that ordains life as having a meaningful order, or narrative arc.

Such individuals would be akin to the ten percent of atheists who also claim to believe in God, or Christians who claim that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, or in other words confused, about the very thing they claim to believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aligning isn't apart. Similar things aren't all the same.

Meaning and order are things theists believe. But their believe doesn't overrule the out of the group few who believe things like the universe just always exists and order is just a force akin to gravity being a force. There's no notion that makes that theistc just because other theists may think it too.

Its more black and white only in or out thinking from you that you seem to resist avoiding. Just like in morality where you can claim because of basic 101 type meanings say you can't be relative and not objective despite inner layers of philosophers who promote those ideas because there's dozens of ways one could be relativistic or non objective. When you even break things out in ways talking about people who don't believe the thing they claim to believe, it reflects a stronger focus to the label than the idea in them or ones knock of them for that status. It's the labeling and boxing in of ideas that doesn't actually fit how millions of perspectives can actually be equated.

"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
11-09-2016, 12:39 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.

Some of the conclusions about their cognition levels might be down to simply being a different species; barriers to communications for example. They would appear to be better than humans at some cognition related tasks if this story is anything to go by
Quote:When it comes to simple competitive games, chimps make a monkey out of humans and make a genius out of John Forbes Nash Jr.

Chimpanzees playing each other in a simple matching game outperformed human players, apparently by paying closer attention to opponents’ patterns and adjusting more optimally, according to a study published Wednesday in Scientific Reports.

As a result, the chimps more often reached an equilibrium point described by Nash, where neither could do much better by adjusting strategy (think of all those frustrating stalemates in tic-tac-toe, for example).
http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...tory.html.

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
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
11-09-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Of course, chimps always have that fall back strategy: Beat you unconscious and chew your genitals and extremities off... Shocking

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
11-09-2016, 03:42 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:48 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You are quite right that the belief in a designer is philosophy but I think we can investigate how we came to arrive at those beliefs by using science. When we are done, we will be no closer to answering the question of whether those beliefs are actually true or not.
How some people came to those beliefs, I'm tempted to say is still philosophy, but perhaps there is a bit of psychology as well. And psychology is a science (albeit soft science). So perhaps.

We are not born with a belief in gods.
So lets just say that we are most definitely born atheists.

When we are young children, we don't really understand existence or the rules of reality. Pretty much anything goes, until we start to learn the rules.
We will believe in santa, easter bunny, fairies, monsters, magic etc because we we don't know better and there are so many people telling us that these things are real.

Of course we aren't born believing in fairies. We need someone to bring the idea up. To explain or show us what a fairy is supposed to look like. When we get told that a fairy takes our old fallen out tooth and replaces it with money, then we want to believe it. Then when our tooth disappears and in its place is a shiny coin, well, that's the proof right there.

As young kids we don't know how to be sceptical, we don't know how to verify if something is true or not. We don't know what stories seem too far a stretch and what stories seem mundane. We don't understand why people (including our parents) would go out of their way to fool us.

This doesn't mean that the default position is that fairies do exist and therefore the burden of proof is on those to prove that fairies don't exist.

That's not the way it works.


"Good" parenting, IMO involves lying to your children. This will teach them to be skeptical, to look for ways to verify your claims. It will teach them to think for themselves rather than to appeal to your (and other people's) authority.

It's about giving your kids life skills rather than knowledge. They can work out knowledge for themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
11-09-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 04:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  [...]
Such individuals would be akin to the ten percent of atheists who also claim to believe in God, or Christians who claim that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, or in other words confused, about the very thing they claim to believe.

This is flat out incorrect. The second someone says they believe in gods or are absolutely certain gods exist, they are not atheists. So the actual number is 0 percent. It is zero. This is because atheism is already defined. If you don’t fit that definition, you’re not an atheist. Simple. So someone who claims to be an atheist, then says god exists is simply wrong about their self-labelling, or willfully lying.

[It's] suspected many people wrongly believe that atheism means having no religion. These people should be corrected, not added to the atheist category of a study.

Rebuttal to Pew Research 3 November 2015

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
11-09-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 04:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Such individuals would be akin to the ten percent of atheists who also claim to believe in God, or Christians who claim that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, or in other words confused, about the very thing they claim to believe.

Well, if Christianity isn't a religion then maybe the government should reexamine their tax exemption status.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
11-09-2016, 07:00 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(11-09-2016 12:03 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(10-09-2016 07:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.
BB, do we know for sure there was not any kind of simple verbal, but ritualized, praying to the Sun and/or animal spirits before the African exodus? Do we have evidence there was not or just a lack of evidence that there was?

There was what has been labelled a "paint workshop" found in the Blombos cave (on S Africa"s south coast) along with geometric designs on stones. These have been dated to around 100 ky ago. Does this not mitigate for sufficient sophistication to have a "spiritual" dimension in their lives as well?

Later thoughts:
Does it come down to semantics, to what is meant by the term "religion"? Is one small, isolated, related group praying to a naturalistic deity for a good hunt practicing a "religion", or does it take organised ritual involving many unrelated people, a set of rules and a hierarchy?

From your Wiki link:
Quote:When humans first became religious remains unknown, but there is credible evidence of religious behavior from the Middle Paleolithic era (300–500 thousand years ago)[citation needed] and possibly earlier.

So that's before the African exodus.

OK, the "citation needed" is the caveat here, as so often, in such a field we are theorising from possibly inadequate evidence or understanding.

I'm of the opinion that the beginnings of religion developed in our proto-ape ancestors along with their expanding brain power. See this thread.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...f-religion
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: