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, 09:05 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.

Using that logic then I suppose I also suffer from such maladies as:
Aunicornathy
Aleprechaunathy
Adragonathy

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? That’s because it is. Atheopathy fits right in.

By the way you didn’t address my other points.

“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
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
12-09-2016, 09:06 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:46 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 09:19 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Of course. Natural selection doesn't select for truth but for survival advantage. It's even caused some people to be atheists. Wink

You appear not to understand why infants are born atheists. You start of as a zygote(a single cell). By the same token of your warped logic, this cell has(or hasn't) a survival advantage because it is atheist.

In reality, this is patent nonsense. In spite of what we have been taught all our lives, there are such things as stupid questions and inquiries.

"You appear not to understand why infants are born atheists."

You appear not to understand that I reject this premise. So does current research. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:13 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 09:06 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  "You appear not to understand why infants are born atheists."

You appear not to understand that I reject this premise. So does current research. Wink

No the current research does not.

Link

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
12-09-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:49 AM)Rusle Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Hello. This is my first time posting and even visiting here.
I am also new here.
I have not read all the other replies here and I am sure that many of the things I mention is covered by other post on this tread.
Quote:Here is my hypothesis:

1. Our starting assumption is not that a god exists or doesn't exist but that its existence is outside of the purview of science. We will not consider supernatural or non-natural explanations.
I agree.
If it can not show any effect on the real world, then it can not be part of science.
So God itself is not science, but the belief can be a part of a science study.
Quote:2. Theism is the default position. We are all born believers. Evolution has caused us to be this way due to its survival advantage.
Since there are more believers in god/gods in USA compared to Europe (especially in the northern part of Europe). What evolutionary selection mechanism could do that?
I think we want to see patterns in what is around us, even when there is no real pattern to be found. Yes, that is probably part of the reason many people do believe in gods, but I do not think people do see patterns in nature because they believe in gods.
Quote: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.
This claim can be tested.
In order to do so you need to check if this is true for areas/countries where the belief in God is in a minority.
If you look at USA where a lot of the atheist are sceptics, this would be the result because they are sceptics not atheists.
Quote:4. One mechanism that we know of which tends to break things and corrupt information is genetic mutation.
Mutations do spread in a population, but they spread quite slow.
Quote:5. So, my testable, falsifiable prediction is that one or more genetic mutations are responsible for atheopathy.
Then it have been a mass mutation in Scandinavia in less than 100 years because the atheism here is quite high.
Quote: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 )
There might be that people with autism are more likely to become atheist, I have never seen that study.
Quote: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 think I once believed in Santa, but not anymore. My parents never tried to teach me about God and when I was starting to considering the possibility I was already aware that there have been so many other religions that people do not believe in anymore.
I think that was the reason why I never started to believe in gods.
Quote: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.

Thank you for your time and attention.
No offence taken. Smile
I think it is good to question yourself in order to see if it is correct.
Sometimes it can be a good idea to get help from others in order to see the mistakes.

Welcome, Rusle. You said:

"Since there are more believers in god/gods in USA compared to Europe (especially in the northern part of Europe). What evolutionary selection mechanism could do that?"

That is conflating pattern detection with religion. When people have an alternate - or better - explanation for pattern detection - that design is an illusion, for example, as espoused by Richard Dawkins, they give up religion. But those are atheists, not technically atheopaths. They came to their conclusions and beliefs (or lack thereof) through rational thought.

You said:

". . . I do not think people do see patterns in nature because they believe in gods.

It's actually reversed. I'm saying I think people believe in gods because they see patterns in nature. Seeing patterns comes first. The need to explain those patterns with religion comes second.

You said:

"Then it have been a mass mutation in Scandinavia in less than 100 years because the atheism here is quite high."

My hypothesis does not attempt to explain ALL forms of atheism but merely what I call atheopathy. People become atheists for many reasons. I'm sure that atheopathy is but a very small fraction of all atheists. That's why it might be nearly impossible to find data on this at all.

You said:

"There might be that people with autism are more likely to become atheist, I have never seen that study."

I don't think it's that autistics "become" atheists as that could imply a choice. I think they have a natural, in-born tendency toward atheism. Here is an article about one such study:

http://www.autismkey.com/study-finds-cor...nd-autism/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 09:01 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 09:19 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Of course. Natural selection doesn't select for truth but for survival advantage. It's even caused some people to be atheists. Wink

Are you not-trying-to-say that atheism isnt true?
Got a claim to make, then bring your evidence, else shut the fuck up, but dont bother me with these between the lines insinuations, coward.

You said:

"Are you not-trying-to-say that atheism isnt true?"

No, actually I'm not. I've never claimed that anywhere. In fact, my original post made it clear that the hypothesis made no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's how methodological naturalism works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:30 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 10:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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?

And why does every major religious university and religion department have to require courses in "Apologetics" ?

Tongue

What do they feel they need to apologize for ?

Laugh out load

Hoping that last part was a joke. But for those who don't know, "apologia" was a Greek legal term meaning "to make a defense." Nothing to do with saying sorry. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:39 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 01:25 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You have no doubt heard the explanation of religion given by Michael Shermer and others that evolution has caused us to see teleology in nature because of its survival advantage. If a rabbit hears a rustle in the bushes, it is better off to assume the noise came from a dangerous predator and either run or hide. Those rabbits that assumed the noise was merely the wind got eaten and thus did not pass on their genes. In this way, we are inclined to experience many "false-positives" and this, so the theory goes, is the origin of religion.

The rabbits would still get eaten if they assumed the noise was merely their buddy in the sky. Bringing them the latest prophecy...

The survival advantage(s) of being born superstitious. Is that something you plan to dig into at some point? Perhaps tell us?

It's been written about extensively by Shermer, Pinker and others. And I would obviously cover it in the book. But here are 2 different articles on it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...s-survive/

http://www.livescience.com/14504-superst...harms.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:46 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 01:58 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(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.

Interesting, can you cite us references to support this statement please, Randy.

That is references that offer hard scientific evidence, repeatable by any person with the "equipment", rather than the opinion of people, however qualified or derived from statistics or psychology or something else open to interpretation.

And I did a quick look at genocides since 1914. The only ones that seem pinnable purely on what some consider totally "atheist" regimes are those of Soviet Russia and communist China, regimes with no belief in the supernatural at least. Though some might say that communism is a belief system as much as a political one.

So, some hard evidence that atheists killed so many simply because they were atheists please. A list of such would be nice, to compare with Wikipedia at least. Not always sure about the Wiki.

I did some deeper work on this some time ago, will have to dig it out.

You said:

"So, some hard evidence that atheists killed so many simply because they were atheists please."

But I specifically said atheism as a lack of belief could not motivate anyONE to do anyTHING. I said anti-theists - those who were trying to eradicate religion - were responsible for the great number of deaths. Yes, it is often because they were despots who didn't want any competition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 02:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Randy! Our Georgia Tech yellowjacket has returned... boy, I've missed you! Rolleyes

Yes, humans have a tendency in their pattern-finding apparatus for projecting their psyche onto an imaginary friend (as we see in young children), that often (in our culture) develops in adults as theism, which is backed up by research but which is not indicative in any way of the truth or even plausibility of the existence of this concept.

All it shows is that many humans have wiring that lends itself (in about 85% of the population, if I recall correctly) to Projection. Many have speculated that groups which had such a capacity had survival advantage over groups that did not, since it gives a collective sense that may unite a tribe more efficiently than one that is more individualistic.

It is a leftover from our evolutionary heritage as pattern-finding apes that lived in tribal social groups.

In the modern world, it expresses itself in the form of religions and sports clubs and racism and nationalism, all of which often evoke fanaticism that is quite dangerous to anyone those groups come to see as "The Other". It is this principle which led the communists, for instance, to kill anyone who was a threat to their tribe-- including the rival tribe of religionists who resisted the communist society.

It would take someone already programmed to accept theism as a reality to take these data and form them into a pattern that says atheism is some sort of inferior position. Rather, it could be interpreted in another way, which I would assert: the rise in atheism is humanity evolving away from our cave-man, tribal roots... and we'd better recognize that this is a thing to strive for before our now-nuclear-armed tribes decide to sterilize the planet "Because God Wills It".

Edit to Add: I'm getting really tired of the "atheists killed ____ million people" meme. It's simply untrue. People did not kill in the name of atheism, nor because others weren't atheists. Rather, COMMUNISTS, who wanted to make a particular society, killed or brutally imprisoned (leading to most of the deaths) anyone who stood in the way of their societal plan by rejecting communism. Yes, communists thought people should be atheists, but they did not force anyone to become an atheist. If you can furnish an example of a person killed for not converting to atheism, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, stop saying that shit. It's totally dishonest and just makes you look like an asshole.

You said:

"Randy! Our Georgia Tech yellowjacket has returned... boy, I've missed you!"

I have no idea what that means. Please explain.

You said:

"People did not kill in the name of atheism"

And I did not ever say they did. In fact, I said they didn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I think this entire idea presupposes belief before atheism. I was first an atheist. An atheist I remain.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: