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
13-09-2016, 05:49 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 05:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 05:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Please show us other examples supportive of "agency detection".

Please prove to us that "agency detection" exists. By not appealing to authority.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You clearly did not read any of the supporting material.
The evidence is there.

You accused me of cherry picking examples, so share another example with me, one of your own choice.

And there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence in your supporting material, just a whole lot of "opinion". So no you have't met the burden of proof.

"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
13-09-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 10:31 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Yes, but what is a word for atheists who specifically were born that way and did not arrive at their views through logic and reason?

Intellectually gifted.

(12-09-2016 10:27 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Nope. I coined it before I realized they use it in a derogatory sense. I made it clear that I am not using it that way.

YOU used it in a derogatory sense as well. Multiple posters, including myself, explained how and why it was derogatory. The fact that you ignore this reflects poorly on either your integrity or your intelligence. Or both.

(12-09-2016 10:27 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I'm sorry if you are butt-hurt at the term "atheopath" but if you understand the way I am using it, you won't be. Would you like to suggest another term I could use?

Genius.

(12-09-2016 10:43 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  I did no such thing. I said that atheopathy - not atheism - might be the result of one or more genetic mutations. And I no where implied that all genetic mutations are bad. Maybe, due to your own bias, you are reading into my words something that is not there.

You used words like "corrupted", "broken" and "mutation" in a negative way. If you cannot understand the way your words and phrasing could be offensive or negative, then you have no business writing any books.

(12-09-2016 10:51 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Now, it's probably best if you go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Awfully full of ourselves, aren't we? Drinking Beverage

(13-09-2016 12:05 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Actually they do. I've seen it done with with the words evolution, faith, religion, vestigial, species, atheism, belief, and nothing to name just a few. Matt Dillahunty even made up his own definition for "knowledge" which, since Aristotle, has been justified true belief.

Considering the lies you have posted already, and the lack of supportive citations in your post, I see no reason to believe this.

As a matter of fact I've heard Dillahunty (in his debate with STB) use the Aristotelian definition of knowledge.

(13-09-2016 12:17 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Agree with him all you want and you'll still be wrong. I specifically said, "science arose and prospered in the West . . ." The WEST.

You have been shown links to credible resources that completely repudiate your claims. You can capitalize it all you want. You're still wrong.

(13-09-2016 12:11 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You really should inform yourself about the Galileo affair. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo was convicted and placed under house arrest more because he insulted the Pope that for his science. It was a clash of egos and it was wrong. But it wasn't really about science as historians acknowledge. And unfortunately the Catholic Church had bought into the cosmology of Aristotle. Galileo was a devout Christian.

It was about science. He insulted the pope by disagreeing with him on the Copernican theory. You really should quit lying about this stuff. It's very easy to prove you wrong.

Link

(13-09-2016 12:27 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The quote by Darwin ... I wouldn't trust a scientist - or anyone for that matter - who didn't have doubts.

Darwin even said...

Citations? When and where did he say it?

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
13-09-2016, 06:22 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 10:00 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  [Gloucester] said:

"But are we also born with a faculty for belief? I think we are, but it is an empty vessel that may, or may not, be filled with some specific system. That system will mostly come from external influence, which may or may not include a deity of some form."

Yes, I totally agree. And this is something of value for me that I can say has come out of this thread so far: to make clear the distinction between "pattern recognition" (ie. agency detection, theism) and religion. I see how people can all too easily conflate them.

Which directly contradicts your contention that theism is the default position. A capacity for belief or even a predisposition to belief is not theism. Until the belief forms (whatever that belief is) the individual is not a theist.

I'm still waiting to hear how you can demonstrate that having little or no predisposition to believe unsupported claims is the "damaged" position and not that nature is repairing a flaw that led to theopathy...

Even if you could show your premises to be true, your conclusion seems to be based on an appeal to nature fallacy.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
13-09-2016, 06:31 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2016 06:35 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:Nope. I coined it before I realized they use it in a derogatory sense. I made it clear that I am not using it that way.

If someone uses the term "-path" or "-pathy" to describe a medical term, then he is either incredibly ignorant not to know about pathology which is (quote wiki).

Quote:Pathology (from the Greek roots of pathos (πάθος), meaning "experience" or "suffering", and -logia (-λογία), "study of") is a significant component of the causal study of disease and a major field in modern medicine and diagnosis.

or

he deliberately chose this word but is backpedaling now.


Again it makes no sense to me that someone claims to be educated enough on a scientific topic to write a complete book about this on one hand, but on the other hand he pretends to be not informed enough to give a proper -as in unbiased- name for the condition he is trying to discuss in his book. Thats borderline ridiculous.

Or

He is backpedaling

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
13-09-2016, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2016 06:47 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
I did some digging, and it turns out the term "atheopath" was invented in 2008 by Creation.com, as a way of striking back in reaction to an article by New Scientist about the dishonest [tactics] and distortions of the Creationist movement. Their article, titled (I kid you not), Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions, The Darwin–Hitler connection referred to the entire magazine (presumably its editorial and writing departments) as suffering from "atheopathy", and goes on at quite some length to commit the biggest Godwin's Law violation I've ever seen.

I think it gained more momentum in Creationist circles, however, from a 2009 reaction to Richard Dawkins' claim that religion was a memetic virus (implying that it is a pathology). Their footnote on the use of the word is as follows:

"Leading misotheist Richard Dawkins often calls theistic religion a ‘virus of the mind’, which would make it a kind of disease or pathology, and parents who teach it to their kids are, in Dawkins’ view, supposedly practising mental child abuse. But the sorts of criteria Dawkins applies makes one wonder whether his own fanatical antitheism itself could be a mental pathology—hence, 'atheopath'."

In 2010, the Creation Ministries f**ks (folks?) used the term to describe Stephen Hawking, by way of explaining what's wrong with him for rejecting religion. The term has gained momentum in Creationist circles, and they have continued to use the term aggressively to describe their idea that anti-theists suffer from a mental condition, such as in this article, titled "What do Atheopaths Have to Hide?".

Starting around 2012, the term began to appear more frequently in Christian forums and hyper-conservative discussion boards, largely after citing to the Creation.com article.

The fact that this guy is even using it as if it is a real thing shows his hidden agenda and inherent dishonesty. He's exactly like the other Creationists we've seen in here so often: they pretend to be intellectually honest and interested in reasoned debate, but the truth is that they have a powerful agenda that drives the secret hatred in their black little hearts... that's why they're so willing to Lie For Jesus™. Anything is justified when you're dealing with those damned atheists... er, I mean "atheopaths".

I'm also surprised no one here pointed out that we have only a handful of members who were never religious. Most of us were brought up under religious indoctrination and finally managed to figure out that we were being lied to by theopaths.

Yes, by the way, you read that right: while atheopathy is not a real word, except as a slur made up by Creationists, theopathy is a real one.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-09-2016, 06:46 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
PS - Here's the original article in New Scientist, if you want to figure out what's so "atheopathic" about it... because I can't.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...nceptions/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
13-09-2016, 07:58 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 06:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:Nope. I coined it before I realized they use it in a derogatory sense. I made it clear that I am not using it that way.

If someone uses the term "-path" or "-pathy" to describe a medical term, then he is either incredibly ignorant not to know about pathology which is (quote wiki).

Quote:Pathology (from the Greek roots of pathos (πάθος), meaning "experience" or "suffering", and -logia (-λογία), "study of") is a significant component of the causal study of disease and a major field in modern medicine and diagnosis.

or

he deliberately chose this word but is backpedaling now.


Again it makes no sense to me that someone claims to be educated enough on a scientific topic to write a complete book about this on one hand, but on the other hand he pretends to be not informed enough to give a proper -as in unbiased- name for the condition he is trying to discuss in his book. Thats borderline ridiculous.

Or

He is backpedaling
Yes, Randy seems to have at least at many reverse gears as forward ones.


And the twisty path of his word-wriggling is quite hard to navigate.

-----------------------

Going back to the origin of science:

Randy wrote:
Quote:Except that it is a well-established fact that science arose and prospered in the West because nearly all the major branches of science were founded by Christian theists.

Since this is in contention, despite my offering pre-Christian dates for much of the basis of scientific knowledge and, almost certainly, method, Randy could you please offer fully independent citations, not those from declared theist literature, nor declared athiest for that matter, to support your statement?

One might sayvthst until the 17thC Christianity was the main enemy of scientific advance. Except for weapon development if course, you were s
Allowed make better ways of slaying the non-believers.

Had you said "theists", with no specific brand name, were behind science my argument would have been harder, most people in the then "developed" world would have belonged to some theistic belief or other. For many it was possibly "believe or die".

If you cannot or will not please excuse me if I consider it a made up load of cobblers.
Rhyming Cockney slang, "cobbler's awls" = "balls"

Still waiting for your word on the authorship of that book.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
It's also interesting that since research shows that a higher percentage of homosexuals are atheists and that homosexuality likely happens in the womb due to a depletion of testosterone, this may further help to explain atheopathy.

It's not clear, however, whether those gay people who are atheists merely reject organized religion and still believe in some kind of higher power. If that's the case, I think we would all agree that they are not really atheists. But the fact that there may be a correlation is interesting.

I'm also finding research about religious people having more dopamine in their brains and atheists having less. If my hypothesis is true, there may be a genetic mutation either in the atheist or the believer which causes it to produce too much or too little dopamine. This is worth looking into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 08:24 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 08:10 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's also interesting that since research shows...

Is this the same research that helped you with this:
[Image: Untitled_zpskrivqfuj.png]

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
13-09-2016, 08:39 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 08:10 AM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  This is worth looking into.

Your research method seems to be to see how far up your arse you can shove your finger. No wonder you obtain such striking results.

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: