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, 09:00 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 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.
Ah, creationist strategy #2: If the enemy keep coming back asking you to substantiate the unsubstantiatable attempt to divert the discussion onto something else.

First it was the origin of science now he is saying homosexuals are mosty atheists. Must be a quite a few atheistic clergymen then!

By the way, Randy, did you write that book? Yes or no?

Yes, that is a sort of diversion as well, but it has relevence to your stance and methods here. Homosexuality does not, whether it is a "-pathy" or not.

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
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
13-09-2016, 09:05 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 08:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(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.

Not finger. Head.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
13-09-2016, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2016 10:39 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Oooh! A chance to force in to the conversation one of the best words EVER! that joins up a couple of different comments from this thread.

(credit to my mother's Scrabble talent which forced me to read Chambers' dictionary.)

(13-09-2016 06:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
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.

Quote:noun
1. religious emotion excited by the contemplation of God.

(11-09-2016 07:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-09-2016 07:00 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  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
Perhaps if apes had cameras then they'd be taking photographs of waterfalls.

Taghairm

Quote:The divination [sought by being] wrapped in the warm smoking hide of a newly slain ox or cow, commonly an ox, and laid at full length in the wildest recess of some lonely waterfall.

Or, for those who prefer a Dr. Seuss version:

... a Celt in a pelt, felt.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
13-09-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(12-09-2016 11:18 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 11:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually it doesn't. And as uaual, you FAIL to provide any supporting evidence.

"No one shall come to me unless the Father draw him"
"For many are called, but few are chosen"
"To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,"

As usual, we know more about the Bible than those who call themselves believers.

I didn't know you were a Calvinist, Bucky. (I am not.) But regardless, once again you conflate religion with pattern recognition. It's hard to take someone seriously who can't understand even the simplest concepts.

And I really do not want to engage in a theological discussion since this thread is about science. But since you asked, Romans 1:20 says:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This verse indicates that we all know God exists and will be without excuse on judgment day. The passages you cite which support Calvinism would still make a distinction between knowing God exists and doing what he says. Those whom the Father does not draw are still responsible for their sin and will experience punishment for those sins.

What the verse does NOT do however, is say that we are born believers. Merit or lack thereof notwithstanding, it says that there is enough evidence for people to believe. So much that they have no excuse to NOT believe. That is NOT the same thing as saying that people are born believers.

(09-09-2016 11:42 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Actually the Bible, in the New Testament, says we are all born believers.

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
13-09-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Take a step back and think about it guys.

In his first post he stated that
#1 there are "natural" atheists who become atheists by being rational people. He has no issue with them

#2 there are people, who allegedly have a genetic predisposition toward atheism. It is supposed to be a kind of broken agency detector. They are atheists too!

Keep in mind, he pretends not to attack atheism as a whole, but *only* atheists according to #2!

So, if you were him, how would you name the "state" or "disease" in which you want to refer to #2 only, and not #1?

Detectopaths? A-agencyopaths? Agencylackopaths? Whatever....but what would you not do if you were intellectually honest and tried to separate people from category #1 and #2? Right, you would under no fucking circumstance throw both categories into the same pot and call them "atheopaths", if you were intellectually honest that is.

Second:
You can ask everyone on the planet (at least including members of monotheistic religions), and everybody would admit that they are atheists, at least with the exception of their own god. So basically everyone does not believe in almost any god that ever existed. But those who disbelieve in one god less (have no belief in gods at all) are different from everybody else and can be described as being "suffering from a diseaed state"? Facepalm
Its becoming even more hilarious that every god that could be disproven has been disproved (Thor, Zeus, we know where thunder and lightning come from), the ones most people still believe in can not be disproved or arent even defined properly, but the people who dont accept any of that are partially the sick ones? Seriously?
Almost every god has been proven to not exist, no gods existence at all has been verified so far, but the ones that dont believe in any gods have a subgroup that is genetically challenged? What about all those who do believe in any of those gods that do not exist or havent been demonstrated to exist? They are not genetically challenged?
Sounds to me like pissing in my general direction and telling me its raining.

Third:
According to Randys "theory" there are 2 sorts of atheists. And the -paths would need to be sorted out (and probably scientifically investigated, like lab rats, hehe) if he is correct. Would you as sceptics like to have soemone like Randy who believes in things he really has no good reason for, to figure out if you are part of a group of "genetically challenged" people?

The more i think about this, the more i have to laugh.


P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not? Consider

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, 10:15 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This verse indicates that we all know God exists and will be without excuse on judgment day.

Nope

All this verse indicates is that you need to give us one good reason as to why we should be interested in what it has to say if it wasnt some morbid curiosity as to why people take shit like this at face value without sceptical inquiry. Yet i wont hold my breath since you havent really exceled so far in providing good reasons to believe anything you say, and in case of a certain book seem to try to avoid to give any reasons whatosever to believe either way.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
13-09-2016, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2016 10:25 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 09:38 AM)tomilay Wrote:  What the verse does NOT do however, is say that we are born believers. Merit or lack thereof notwithstanding, it says that there is enough evidence for people to believe. So much that they have no excuse to NOT believe. That is NOT the same thing as saying that people are born believers.

Yep, Paul says that the evidence is there in everyone's heart, so that they have no excuse not to believe. It doesn't say we're born as believers. In fact, Paul makes it very clear that he's talking about idol worshipers, not atheists, in the next couple of verses:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."
Romans 1:18-23 (Emphasis mine.)

Incidentally, that's exactly what the Muslims claim, too:

"We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth." Fussilat, Surah 41:53

"If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him with Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs; so relate the story; perchance they may reflect." Al-Araf, Surah 7:176

"None can dispute About the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers. Let not then, their strutting about through the land deceive you." Al-Mu'min, Surah 40:4

"They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight." Al-Kahf, Surah 18:105

We see right through both of you. You both claim Unquestionable Truth™, and try to attack the dignity and integrity of any who disagree with you. You cannot both be right, but you can both be wrong. It is apparent to anyone who looks at comparative religion that your methods and basic premises are the same, and equally faulty. That is why we do not believe.

"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, 10:25 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Desse says:
Quote:P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not?
Randy has avoided most mentions of this book, with the exception of attempting to defend my accusation that the out of context partial quotation about Darwin means something other than its quite obvious intention to ''prove'' even scientists are unhappy with the theory of evolution (hope they are, but in the sense of seeking to refine it.)

In my limited experience avoidance either means that he holds the question in utter contempt - but most will say that they do so - or he is unwilling to admit to authorship of a volume containing obviously dishonest strategies.

My personal conclusion is the latter. He is seeks to perpetuate a trail of terminological inexactitudes.

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
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
13-09-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 09:38 AM)tomilay Wrote:  What the verse does NOT do however, is say that we are born believers. Merit or lack thereof notwithstanding, it says that there is enough evidence for people to believe. So much that they have no excuse to NOT believe. That is NOT the same thing as saying that people are born believers.

Yep, Paul says that the evidence is there in everyone's heart, so that they have no excuse not to believe. It doesn't say we're born as believers. In fact, Paul makes it very clear that he's talking about idol worshipers, not atheists, in the next couple of verses:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."
Romans 1:18-23 (Emphasis mine.)

Incidentally, that's exactly what the Muslims claim, too:

"We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth." Fussilat, Surah 41:53

"If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him with Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs; so relate the story; perchance they may reflect." Al-Araf, Surah 7:176

"None can dispute About the Signs of Allah but the Unbelievers. Let not then, their strutting about through the land deceive you." Al-Mu'min, Surah 40:4

"They are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of Judgment, give them any weight." Al-Kahf, Surah 18:105

We see right through both of you. You both claim Unquestionable Truth™, and try to attack the dignity and integrity of any who disagree with you. You cannot both be right, but you can both be wrong. It is apparent to anyone who looks at comparative religion that your methods and basic premises are the same, and equally faulty. That is why we do not believe.

I have no problem with your observations. I am merely pointing out that OP's claims about what the Bible actually says are also dubious. An equal opportunity liar. Whether he is quoting Darwin or the Bible.

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
13-09-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(13-09-2016 10:25 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Desse says:
Quote:P.S.: I am too interested to finally hear: Did he write that "infamous" book or not?
Randy has avoided most mentions of this book, with the exception of attempting to defend my accusation that the out of context partial quotation about Darwin means something other than its quite obvious intention to ''prove'' even scientists are unhappy with the theory of evolution (hope they are, but in the sense of seeking to refine it.)

In my limited experience avoidance either means that he holds the question in utter contempt - but most will say that they do so - or he is unwilling to admit to authorship of a volume containing obviously dishonest strategies.

My personal conclusion is the latter. He is seeks to perpetuate a trail of terminological inexactitudes.

Someone should just email the author to ask if he's posting on this forum. Maybe admins can remove links to the book if he's not the author.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: