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
12-09-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 12:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's just bunk science, only a notch above memetics.

It may actually be junk science, but the day I trust you to determine that, after all the utter rubbish you've cheerfully propounded here on this forum, Mr "I-know-science-I-used-to-push-papers-at-a-pharmacy-firm", will be a cold day in hell.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-09-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 06:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 10:36 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I will also briefly go into other theories of the causes of atheism. Once such theory that I know you will all reject out of hand is the "bad dads" theory of Paul Vitz.

The phrasing you use here implies that atheism is a condition when it is, in fact, a position.

If that indeed is your focus then you need to rethink your premise imo.

You also may want to look at it from the obvious perspective of what causes (using your own term) theism and the belief in the unseen, untestable and un-evidenced. To do this it is imperative that you have a thorough understanding in the sciences of developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience that detail how intellectual development occurs and how humans learn.

It occurs to me that if your point is to have any merit then you would also have to show why someone who is born with a "working agency detector” doesn’t ALSO believe in other phenomena.

Conversely show why someone who is born with a defective “agency detector” still “believes” in supporting evidence.

Your premise that it is only gods that are included or excluded by this “agency detector” discredits the argument of such thing existing.

If you fully understand my hypothesis and Premise #3 of my argument in the original post, then I suppose I am saying that "atheopathy" IS a condition, not a position. A position must be held volitionally. Atheopathy would be like a sexual orientation. It is not something you choose It is something you are born with.

"You also may want to look at it from the obvious perspective of what causes (using your own term) theism and the belief in the unseen, untestable and un-evidenced."

I addressed this briefly in the original post (see the rabbit example) but there would be at least one full chapter about it in the book. Thanks for your input.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:05 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:40 AM)Walter Wrote:  Randy, I have some feedback.

Why did you come here and state that theism is the default? That is like saying that government or totalitarianism is the default. It is, very simply, a lie.

My wife’s Catholic faith came from her parents. Maybe others got there by reading early Church fathers or watching Jimmy Swaggart. I don’t know.

What I do know is that it is not the default, and you know it. 2,000 years out of 2,000,000 is, take a wild guess, cross out those zeros if you feel like it, 1/1000th of the time we have been running around trying to eat, mate and stay alive. Argumentum ad Orderum Magnitdum.

And then you have the gall to bring science into the discussion. Jesus Christ!

In Randy's defense, he has said only that he personally is a Christian theist. I don't recall him saying, or implying, that the tendency toward belief that he thinks most humans are born with is specifically a Christian, much less Catholic belief. You, and some others here, are painting his thesis as much more specific than it really is. He is not doing Christian apologetics. He is merely claiming that some sort of tendency toward some sort of theism is innate in humans. I'm not sure I agree with him, but many here are arguing against things he hasn't said.

I myself have taken issue with the atheistic "born this way" argument. Certainly, people learn their specific religious beliefs (Christianity vs. Islam vs. Buddhism, etc.) from their parents or other elders, but if that's the only way to acquire religious belief in general, how did it arise in the first place? Were our apelike ancestors already teaching their children about God? I doubt it. Some human or group of humans at some point originated the idea of God. I am interested in how and why this happened. "They learned it from their parents" is way too simplistic.

Thank you, Grasshopper. You get me. Smile

My hypothesis goes further than just explaining how we come to theistic beliefs (as opposed to religious beliefs - which some people here are conflating). It seeks to explain why some people are born without them. in fact, it occurs to me that I might actually have difficulty finding data on that. Perhaps NO ONE - with the exception of maybe autistics - are born atheopaths. Much work to be done. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 08:39 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 06:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The phrasing you use here implies that atheism is a condition when it is, in fact, a position.

If that indeed is your focus then you need to rethink your premise imo.

You also may want to look at it from the obvious perspective of what causes (using your own term) theism and the belief in the unseen, untestable and un-evidenced. To do this it is imperative that you have a thorough understanding in the sciences of developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience that detail how intellectual development occurs and how humans learn.

It occurs to me that if your point is to have any merit then you would also have to show why someone who is born with a "working agency detector” doesn’t ALSO believe in other phenomena.

Conversely show why someone who is born with a defective “agency detector” still “believes” in supporting evidence.

Your premise that it is only gods that are included or excluded by this “agency detector” discredits the argument of such thing existing.

If you fully understand my hypothesis and Premise #3 of my argument in the original post, then I suppose I am saying that "atheopathy" IS a condition, not a position. A position must be held volitionally. Atheopathy would be like a sexual orientation. It is not something you choose It is something you are born with.

"You also may want to look at it from the obvious perspective of what causes (using your own term) theism and the belief in the unseen, untestable and un-evidenced."

I addressed this briefly in the original post (see the rabbit example) but there would be at least one full chapter about it in the book. Thanks for your input.

I'm starting to see what you're saying.

Some people are born with a natural gift of intelligence. If exposed to a nurturing environment, these people can become very educated or at the least very clever or street smart. Then again, some people are just worthless morons and there's nothing you can do for them. It's not their fault that they're so stupid, it's more like a condition that they suffer from.

I think maybe you fall into the latter category. It's not your fault, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
12-09-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Anybody know of an easier way to navigate this message board? Every time I respond to a comment, it takes me to the end of all the messages. Then, I must click #1 to get back to the beginning, and then #7 to see more pages and then find the page I was on and the next comment. It's cumbersome and time-consuming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 08:53 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 08:52 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Anybody know of an easier way to navigate this message board? Every time I respond to a comment, it takes me to the end of all the messages. Then, I must click #1 to get back to the beginning, and then #7 to see more pages and then find the page I was on and the next comment. It's cumbersome and time-consuming.

Case in point!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
12-09-2016, 08:57 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:18 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 08:07 AM)Anjele Wrote:  The concept of god (or gods) came about as a way to explain what was then unexplainable.

That's one hypothesis, and I think it's largely true. I've also heard that it was invented by priests as a way to gain and maintain power over other people. A reading of the book of Leviticus (which I have recently done) tends to support this view -- many of the regulations in that book seem "designed" (pun intended) for the benefit of the priests. I think the reality is likely to be a combination of those two things (people trying to explain the unexplainable + one group of people trying to control another) and maybe a few others. An innate (or learned) tendency to assume a designer for things that appear to be designed (as Tomasia has suggested) is probably part of it too.

Yes, I would bet that the innate tendency to assume a designer long pre-dated any attempt to codify a religious system. That is a hypothesis that I predict we could find evidence for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 08:57 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 08:49 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  My hypothesis goes further than just explaining how we come to theistic beliefs (as opposed to religious beliefs - which some people here are conflating). It seeks to explain why some people are born without them. in fact, it occurs to me that I might actually have difficulty finding data on that. Perhaps NO ONE - with the exception of maybe autistics - are born atheopaths. Much work to be done. Smile

You gonna answer the question or not?

Did you write that book, "Evolution: Fact or Fiction? - The Secret Truth Darwinists Don't Want You to Know" ?

Yes or No?


Oh, and here...

[Image: for-burns-box_zpswvumeusv.jpg]

(12-09-2016 08:50 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Some people are born with a natural gift of intelligence. If exposed to a nurturing environment, these people can become very educated or at the least very clever or street smart. Then again, some people are just worthless morons and there's nothing you can do for them. It's not their fault that they're so stupid, it's more like a condition that they suffer from.

I think maybe you fall into the latter category. It's not your fault, though.

Ouch.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
12-09-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
At work.

(12-09-2016 08:52 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Anybody know of an easier way to navigate this message board? Every time I respond to a comment, it takes me to the end of all the messages. Then, I must click #1 to get back to the beginning, and then #7 to see more pages and then find the page I was on and the next comment. It's cumbersome and time-consuming.

Hello! Big Grin

Not sure how helpful it might be but clicking on the little green arrow in posts will take you back to the original.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:26 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, Randy, if theism is the default, then why do churchs have to hard sell Christianity to people? Why must children be programmed instead of just letting nature take its course? Can't they be trusted to just naturally fall into Christianity the same way that they'll just naturally go into puberty and crave romantic attention?

You are conflating theism with religion and Christianity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: